<- Back
Comments (26)
- mthomsWe need to make an effort to distinguish “this is a thing for humans” vs “this is a thing for bots” in our naming IMHO. In that respect, “open wiki” is not such a great name. “Agent Wiki” or similar would be better.Without such a qualifier, “wiki” carries a strong connotation of (usually collaborative) human involvement. That’s literally what it’s famous for.Thats just my $0.02 on the naming. I definitely think it’s a worthwhile idea. All the best.
- TeeWEEThis is mostly a thin clintypescript wrapper around the prompts.This could have been a SKILL
- mellosoulsI think it's own sub-dir OpenWiki serves as an example of the sort of output you might get:https://github.com/langchain-ai/openwiki/blob/main/openwiki/...I agree with others this seems somewhat over-engineered; you can get similar results with a good prompt/skill; I guess the rest of the implementation here is intended as an agent-maintainer.
- dcreaterWhat does this do better than just asking your agent to "write docs" or a more robustly defined prompt/skill?
- rrvshmaintaining an LLM wiki has been a lot more effort than I thought, at least if we are trying to maintain a high quality in structure and writing comprehension (for easier lookups both for the agent and human). Are people just shotgunning their agent wikis or how
- zhengsihuaHow does the ability to search code snippets and symbols compare to Codegraph?
- esafakUnless it's about motivation and other things that can't be inferred from the code (and comments on such are missing), just ask the agent. Give it an LSP or code intel MCP to do it better.
- syou1024[dead]
- wrencastellan[flagged]
- felixlu2026[flagged]
- supermdguy[dead]
- shakargy[flagged]
- lodar[dead]